Congressional Hearing on Biotechnology

The Subcommittee on Horticulture, Research, Biotechnology and Foreign Agriculture called a hearing to discuss the societal benefits of biotechnology and study the perception of it in domestic and international culture.

• While media may display biotechnology in a different light, both republicans and democrats agreed that biotechnology was our future, and must remain relevant.
• Democrats responded that by increasing yields, we can decrease the amount of land and water used to grow crops. This would in turn lower our carbon emissions.
• Under the guise of trying to inform the public about biotechnology, it ends up being misinformation. Which is why labeling cannot take place.
• A survey was done to ask consumers whether they enjoyed Biotech chicken which was resistant to diseases, or chicken fed antibiotics to counteract diseases — 85% said that they preferred Biotech chicken.
• Corporations must begin to learn how to spread goodwill amongst its consumers. As of right now, Monsanto and the other corporations are doing a horrible job.
• In order to inform the public better, a line of communication must be open between consumers and producers. Farmers understand the key benefits biotechnology has to offer, but consumers have not jumped on board yet.
• One witness stated that increasing pressure on organics will actually put her out of business. Rising grain prices that are organic only cost more than twice the amount that biotech farming does.
• A study was recently done that found the risk associated between conventionally farmed produce and biotech produce was exactly the same.
• The reason that biotechnology is receiving such a bad name is because activists are misinformed and continue to spread lies about it.

Print